01 HowardBrown id9.indd - Core

国際地域研究論集（JISRD）第 8 号（№ 8 ）2017

査読論文

Why and Why Now? Understanding the Rapid Rise of English-medium Instruction in Higher Education in Japan Brown, Howard1 Abstract English-medium instruction (EMI) of content courses is a growing trend in higher education in Japan. As of 2013, over 1/3 of Japanese universities offered EMI courses, mainly in humanities and social sciences, and this number has been steadily growing over the past 15 years. The timing of the growth in EMI can be tied to shifts in how internationalization is viewed among higher-education stakeholders, administrative and structural changes at universities, changes in the relationship between universities and the government, and the rising importance of university ranking tables. Underlying rationales for EMI implementation can be understood in terms of wider global trends towards greater internationalization, and the massification of higher education in Japan. Other oft cited rationales for EMI implementation, financial incentives or the inward looking tendencies of Japanese youth, do not appear to be significant drivers. Key words: English-medium instruction, Internationalization of higher education, Japanese universities, English-taught programs

1. Introduction Japanese higher education is now experiencing a rapid, but largely uncoordinated, change in the position of English on university campuses. This is part of a larger, “fast-moving world-wide shift from English being taught as a foreign language (EFL) to English being the medium of instruction (EMI) for academic subjects” (Dearden, 2014, p.2). While EMI developments in Japan are, in some respects, paralleling the patterns seen in Europe and elsewhere, Japan seems to be following its own path towards the use of English. Fulldegree programs taught entirely in English are much rarer than in European higher education and the mandated use of English seen in some other parts of Asia is not a factor in the Japanese context, where most EMI courses are elective. In addition, while limited EMI programs have been in place in Japan for some time, the current drive towards widespread EMI is generally acknowledged to be somewhat late compared to Europe or some of Japan’s Asian neighbors. It is possible to understand the growth of EMI in Japan to a first approximation in terms of the wider global trend towards EMI. However, a closer examination of both the underlying drivers of EMI and the triggers of its current expansion show a unique set of overlapping factors that are pushing the Japanese higher education sector towards more and more EMI. 2. The Extent and Position of EMI in Japan Amid the rapid growth of EMI in Japan, official figures tracking its implementation provide only superficial information. Figures based on the tracking of curriculum developments by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT, 2009; 2011; 2015a) show that as of 2013, more than 1/3 of universities in Japan offered EMI classes (see Table 1). It is also clear that nearly half of Japan’s national universities were early adopters of EMI, developing programs in the 1990s and early 2000s, while much of the current growth in EMI is among private universities. ─ 1 ─

1

Why and Why Now? Understanding the Rapid Rise of English-medium Instruction in Higher Education in Japan

Table 1. Number of Universities Offering Undergraduate EMI Classes Universities 2005 2007 2009 2011 2012 2013 42 44 47 47 50 59 National (86) 16 24 24 21 27 29 Public (83) 118 122 123 154 164 174 Private (601) 176 190 194 222 241 262 Total (770) The definition of EMI used here is worth noting. Universities are counted in these figures if they self report that they offer one or more courses conducted entirely in English, excluding those whose primary aim is language education (MEXT, 2009; 2011; 2015a). The definition is clear in that courses must be entirely English-medium; however, the phrase 'primary aim' allows for some variation in interpretation. Depending on how this phrase is understood by universities, some courses positioned in language learning departments may or may not be counted in these figures. Also, offering a single EMI course, not necessarily an entire program, would be sufficient to be counted here. These figures also do not show whether the EMI courses in question are offered for domestic or international students. Another possible source of data on the extent of EMI comes from a recent survey of Japanese university internationalization plans conducted by Tohoku University (2008). Findings from that survey indicate that more than 70% of universities offer at least some courses taught in English, a much higher number than in the official MEXT figures. However, the definition of EMI used in the survey is vague and could be interpreted to include English-language classes taught in English, so the figures may be somewhat inflated. Huang and Daizen (2014) also surveyed Japanese universities on their internationalization plans. One of their findings showed that only 9% of university departments were implementing EMI. However, this figure may be underreporting the extent of EMI as the survey asked if universities oblige students to take EMI classes, so elective courses or programs would likely not be reported. Also, since the authors counted university departments rather than universities, it is difficult to compare this finding directly to the official MEXT figures. In all three of the above sources, the extent of EMI is described only in terms of how many universities or departments offer it. There appears to be little information available on how widespread EMI is on any given campus. Brown and Iyobe (2014) investigated this question and found indications that EMI programs have been growing in both size and number since approximately 2000. Not only did more universities, especially private universities, begin to offer EMI, but also universities with existing EMI programs expanded those programs and began developing new ones. This is consistent with findings from the Tohoku University (2008) survey that shows a sharp increase in the number of universities publishing formal internationalization strategies in 2004. This also parallels a general upswing in interest in EMI around the world over the past ten years (Dearden, 2014). Despite the growth in the number and size of EMI programs, it appears that EMI is still somewhat peripheral on most campuses in Japan. At the universities studied by Brown and Iyobe (2014), EMI programs served less than 5% of the undergraduate student population. A very limited number of universities in Japan require all, or most, students to take EMI courses. Interestingly, EMI programs in Japan are, for the most part, designed and ─ 2 ─

2


implemented for domestic rather than international students, though, as will be discussed below, attracting international students is an oft cited rationale for EMI programs. 3. The growth of EMI in Japan: Why now? The timing of the growth of EMI in Japan has been influenced by several factors. One of these, highlighted by Ishikawa (2011), is a dramatic change in how universities in Japan viewed internationalization in the early 2000s, a shift in perception from aid to trade. Internationalization of higher education, especially by recruiting foreign students, began in earnest in the 1980s. The first goal, established by Yasuhiro Nakasone, Prime Minister from 1982 to 1987, was to recruit 100,000 international students to study on Japanese campuses (Umakoshi, 1997). However, Ishikawa (2011) explains that the internationalization of Japanese universities was not necessarily the intended aim of this strategy. Rather, it was connected to national security, relationships with neighboring countries, trade imbalances, a desire for political influence regionally, and a demonstration of Japan's position on the world stage. In short, recruiting international students and sending them home with a Japanese education and, presumably, positive memories of Japan, was an application of Japan's soft power. It can be seen as a foreign policy, rather than education, initiative and was directed almost entirely at Japan's regional neighbors. This earlier vision of internationalization of higher education did not specifically include support for EMI. In fact, Japanese language education programs and teacher training programs to increase the number of Japanese language teachers were prioritized in order to support incoming international students who would be earning their degrees in mainstream Japanese-medium academic programs (Ota, 2003). Limited EMI programs were implemented at this time; however, they were offered mainly for a small number of short-term visiting students from Europe and North America, not for the much larger numbers of mainly Asian full-time students (Kamibeppu, 2012; Ota, 2003), and not for domestic Japanese students. The growth in EMI since 2000 is linked to a different understanding of the internationalization of higher education, a view more connected to maintaining Japan's competitive position in the world economy. Internationalization, including EMI, is now seen as a necessary strategy for universities as part of sustaining Japan's socio-economic position in an increasingly globalized and competitive world market (Ishikawa, 2011). Globalization is a challenge that must be dealt with, and Japan’s decreasing competitiveness on the global stage is seen as a crisis (Council for the Asian Gateway Initiative, 2007). The internationalization of higher education is seen as a solution to the crisis. In this new view, internationalization goals are related to recruiting top quality talent, both students and faculty, who can push the research agenda ahead and increase the overall competitiveness of Japanese universities. This is connected to Japan's acknowledgement of the role that international students can play as potential recruits in the knowledge-based economy. This fundamental shift occurred in the early 2000s (Ishikawa, 2011) and has contributed to the growth of EMI as universities began to try to appeal to international students in new ways. One sign of this change in understanding can be seen in the widespread support within the government for the current plan to recruit 300,000 international students for Japanese universities. This plan was announced jointly by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and five other ministries. Rather than a foreign policy initiative, the current

─ 3 ─

3


plan is an economic strategy (Yonezawa & Yonezawa, 2016). It was also around this time, in the early 2000s, that education leaders in Japan became more aware of, and interested in, European models of schooling. Japan's results on the 2003 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) test (OECD, 2004) were somewhat lower than the previous test conducted in 2000. Japan ranked second in science performance, but the results in math and reading showed a significant decrease. Unsatisfying results on PISA and other tests became a driver in educational reform at the national level (MEXT, 2005; Mulvey, 2010) and were one factor in turning Japan's attention to Europe. This focus on Europe later intensified when the 2006 PISA results established Finland as a world leader in education (see for example Otake, 2008). EMI program stakeholders interviewed by Brown (2014) refer to the influence that European models have had on university decision makers. By the early 2000s EMI in universities and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in schools were already becoming commonplace in the European context (Wachter & Maiworm, 2008), inspiring some of the growth in EMI in Japan. Other important factors in the timing of the growth of EMI are administrative. As discussed above, much of the current growth of EMI in Japan is in private universities, while national universities were among the early adopters of EMI. In 2004, national universities in Japan were incorporated and became semi-autonomous. However, at the same time, requirements for transparency and accountability became more important. This included the requirement to publish, and then meet, mid-term numerical goals for curriculum development, student services and overall performance. As seen above, this led to a large increase in the number of formal internationalization strategies and was related to the growth of EMI programs as universities sought tangible, quantifiable programs that could be implemented in the name of internationalization. In addition, Ogawa (2002) reports that in the period around the turn of the century, many Japanese universities became more flexible and open to reforms, including EMI, due to changes in administrative organization. At the national level, the incorporation of national universities marked an important turning point for the relationship between universities and MEXT. In the past, universities, both national and private, operated largely independent of MEXT’s control. When new universities were established they went through a four-year period during which MEXT had control over governance and curriculum decisions, but after passing through this probation, MEXT’s influence was minimal. Mori (2009) has described this relationship between MEXT and universities as “a lifetime status of laissez faire” (p.79). However, since 2001, several structural changes in the higher education sector have given MEXT much stronger influence over universities. While ministry funding of universities was once automatic and depended mainly on the number of students, it is now largely based on competitive grants (Mori, 2009; Mulvey, 2010) and MEXT has concentrated that funding on large, elite universities which are pursuing the internationalization aims, including EMI, that MEXT prioritizes (Kudo and Hashimoto, 2011). In addition, recent laws requiring universities to be accredited every seven years in order to continue operating, allow MEXT to guide, or perhaps pressure, universities in a way that was not possible before (Mori, 2009; Mulvey, 2010). The government is focusing its energy, and thus its funding, on large-scale internationalization projects, such as the recent Global 30 and Top Global University projects, and the push to create more world-class institutions. Universities may have little choice but to follow.

─ 4 ─

4


A final factor in the timing of the increase in EMI is related to the development of university rankings. Universities in Japan have long existed in a clear hierarchy with higher status universities being well known for their selectivity, essentially the difficulty of the entrance exam. However, this was a de facto hierarchy of universities, not a measured ranking (Ishikawa, 2009). In the 1990s domestic rankings of Japanese universities by media outlets became common. While initially resistant to the idea of external rankings, universities in Japan quickly adopted them and they became a key element in the marketing strategies of many universities (Yonezawa, Nakatsui & Kobayashi, 2002). By the early 2000s, international rankings of universities were becoming common and the notion of world-class universities was gaining ground in East Asia (Gharzarian, 2011). Many of the major international rankings of universities began at this time. The Academic Ranking of World Universities was established in 2003 and both the Times Higher Education World University Rankings and the QS World University rankings were first published in 2004. Japanese universities have not fared particularly well in international rankings, with only two, the University of Kyoto and Tokyo University, appearing in the top 100 rankings. It has become a goal of both the government and the universities themselves, and something of a point of national pride, to have more Japanese universities positioned higher on these lists. As the proportion of classes taught in English is a factor in the evaluation criteria of some, though not all, rankings, having EMI courses and programs is seen by university leaders as a way for some institutions to climb the rankings (Brown, 2014; Kirkpatrick, 2014). 4. Rationales for EMI While the attitudinal, structural and contextual factors described above may have triggered the growth of EMI in the early 2000s, we may have to look elsewhere for the actual drivers. EMI is developing in Japan alongside major shifts in university structure and the contexts in which universities find themselves including the overall trend towards internationalization, and the massification of higher education. 4.1 EMI and Internationalization / Globalization The internationalization of higher education is a leading driver of change at universities all around the world. In light of the globalization of world trade and the new knowledge economy, universities find themselves in an increasingly competitive higher education market which is no longer limited by national borders. As a response, universities have been focusing on international activities, steadily increasing both the number and scope of such programs (Altbach & Knight, 2007). According to the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP, 2009) many university stakeholders in Japan, especially those in leadership positions, see EMI as a positive step towards internationalization. At some universities EMI is the cornerstone of the internationalization strategy while at others, it is at least an element of the strategy. However internationalization does not always necessarily imply EMI. The study conducted by Tohoku University in 2008 showed that 60% of Japanese universities identified internationalization as a top priority and more than 70% of universities had formal internationalization goals and strategies in place and were actively pursuing internationalization. However, at that time, EMI was being implemented by only approximately 25% of universities (MEXT, 2011), indicating that nearly half of universities in Japan were pursuing internationalization without EMI. Common non-EMI ─ 5 ─

5


internationalization activities include: a greater focus on language proficiency, both through language classes and mandatory language proficiency testing, especially in English; support for study abroad programs; and the development of cooperation agreements with universities overseas. Along with universities’ aims to internationalize, other commonly-cited rationales for EMI in Asia include the development of domestic human resources. EMI is assumed by government and university leaders to be a route to improvements in students' global outlook and overall improvements in education (Hamid, Nguyen & Baldauf, 2013). This development of human resources is, of course, tied to improving national competitiveness on the global stage. As such, globalization is seen as a major driving force behind internationalization of higher education in general and the development of EMI in particular. There is also a clear, if somewhat simplistic, belief that EMI automatically leads to language proficiency in English for domestic students, which again leads to greater human resource potential. However, Hamid, Nguyen and Baldauf (2013) call this assumption into question, noting that while EMI programs are being funded, attendant language programs are not. It is clear that the various contexts of EMI have paid little attention to the development of language competence by making adequate allocations of financial, personnel and material resources (p.8). Chapple (2015) echoes this concern saying that EMI programs in Japan, at least at second tier universities, are “still very much a work in progress requiring more preparation and support to be of linguistic benefit to the majority of students” (p. 9). In addition, Tsuneyoshi (2005) indicates that the language-proficiency of domestic students is a major stumbling block for EMI programs. However, in many programs, there are no clear connections between the EMI and language courses. In some extreme cases, language teachers are not aware that their students are bound for EMI courses and are thus unable to prepare them effectively (Brown, 2014). In addition to universities' individual actions, the government is actively encouraging the use of EMI to internationalize Japanese higher education as a response to globalization. Internationalization and the development of global human resources have dominated official discourse on education for some time (Yonezawa, 2010) and government funding has also been directed towards these aims (Yonezawa, 2011). As a recent policy statement says: Amid ongoing globalization, in order to develop an educational environment where Japanese people can acquire the necessary English skills and also international students can feel at ease to study in Japan, it is very important for Japanese universities to conduct lessons in English for [sic] a certain extent, or to develop courses where students can obtain academic degrees by taking lessons conducted entirely in English (MEXT, 2009b p.17). It is worth noting, however, that this statement does not necessarily imply that all Japanese universities should pursue EMI or that all Japanese people should acquire necessary English skills. Nakatsugawa (2014) argues that, while policy statements superficially appear to be inclusive of all universities, there is an implicit acknowledgement

─ 6 ─

6


within the government that EMI and internationalization are not reasonable goals for the wider higher education sector but rather are something that should be pursued by the upper tier of institutions to serve an elite subset of students, perhaps 10% of the whole domestic university cohort. In recent years, the government has implemented three high-profile funding schemes aimed, in part, at encouraging EMI. First, in 2009, the Global 30 project provided funds for 13 top-tier universities to establish new full-degree English-taught programs in order to attract international students. Then, in 2012 the Project for Promotion of Global Human Resource Development, also known as the Global Jinzai project, funded projects, including EMI programs, at 42 universities. These projects were designed to promote an international outlook and intercultural skills among domestic Japanese students. Finally, most recently, in 2014, 37 universities were designated Top Global Universities in a funding program aimed at establishing Japanese universities as world-class educational institutions. While these sound like positive steps, Yonezawa (2011) notes that government commitment to the internationalization of higher education should not necessarily be counted on over the long term. First, actual government spending on higher education in Japan is among the lowest in the OECD and it is dropping. The effort to create a limited number of world-class institutions has allowed the government to concentrate funding at a few universities while reducing funding rates overall. Also, since the current government enthusiasm for internationalization is tied to ongoing economic and political issues, both at domestic and regional levels, the government’s priorities may shift and commitments may end. In short, universities and academics cannot afford to rely on the current governmentled initiatives. 4.2 EMI and the Massification of Higher Education Along with the pressures of globalization, Yamada (2012) argues that universities in Japan are implementing EMI programs, as a reaction to the massification of higher education. Traditionally, Japanese universities had little incentive to improve the quality of undergraduate education or even monitor its outcomes. Professors, and by extension universities, were almost entirely focused on research. In addition, students' post-graduation employment placement depended more on which university they had graduated from than on anything they actually studied there (Rtischev & Cole, 2003). This situation provided very few incentives for universities to change or improve. In fact, Goodman (2010, citing the work of McVeigh, 2002; Kinmonth, 2005) has said that Japanese universities “have served the interests of the owners and staff more than their students” (p.69). However, since 2000, universities are under more pressure to ensure higher quality education at the undergraduate level and the majority of universities have become more learning and teaching oriented. Yamada (2012) argues that this pressure has come about due to the massification of higher education. Tertiary education in Japan has essentially become a mass commodity. Due to demographic changes, a falling birth rate and an aging population, the cohort of university-aged students has shrunk considerably. At the same time, the capacity of the higher education system in Japan has expanded with many new universities, largely private, opening in the 1990's. In fact, by 2000, 40% of high school graduates were enrolled in a university and including all tertiary education institutions, the enrollment rate was more than 70%. As of 2011, the university enrollment rate was even higher at 47% and the rate ─ 7 ─

7


for the whole tertiary education sector was 76% (Huang, 2012). This universal access has forced Japanese universities to adapt to a new, more diverse student body. A large number of students who would previously have been rejected by universities are now being accepted. Entrance to the elite universities is still highly competitive but a student who simply wants to go to a university can be virtually guaranteed to find admission at a less selective institution. This has led to a large number of students who are perhaps less prepared for the demands of university life than students were a generation ago. According to Aspinall (2005), these demographic pressures are forcing some universities to lower barriers for entrance as they "try to meet the criteria of new students rather than vice versa" (p. 215). This is seen by some as a decline in standards and has led to concerns about the declining value of university degrees. But despite these concerns, it can be argued that this has not been an entirely negative development. As Yamada (2012) argues, this need for remedial courses has contributed to the shift towards a focus on teaching and learning. It has also opened the door to an overall diversification of university programs, including academic enrichment programs and EMI. 4.3 Other Possible Rationales Along with motivations tied to internationalization and massification of higher education, other possible rationales for implementing EMI are sometimes seen in the media or literature. However, as will be discussed below, these may not be as directly tied to EMI as some would say. (1) EMI and Inward-Looking Youth One often-cited rationale for EMI and internationalization of higher education has been that it combats the growing inward-looking tendencies of Japanese youth. In fact MEXT’s (2012) own description of the Project for Promotion of Global Human Resource Development, a funding scheme which supported the development of internationalization and EMI programs at 42 universities, says that it “aims to overcome the Japanese younger generation's inward tendency” (para. 1). This is an argument often heard in Japan from both government and industry. Japan is in need of globally-minded young people, but the current generation of youth refuses to engage with the world, preferring an insular, inward-facing life in Japan. Many making this argument refer to a recent survey of newly-hired employees at major firms by the Sanno Institute of Management (2015). The survey showed that the number of young employees who were unwilling to work overseas more than doubled from 29.2% in 2001 to 63.7% in 2015. However, the youth of Japan may not be as inward looking as government, industry, and media discourse would have one believe. While the number of Japanese university students studying abroad is lower than it once was, interest in overseas study is still very high among them. Recent findings from a British Council (2014) survey of Japanese university students show that 45% of students are interested in studying abroad, a rate actually higher than among British or American university students. In addition, the number of high school students studying abroad has recently dramatically increased, albeit mainly in short-term programs. Imoto (2013) argues that the government and media discourse of "problematizing youth and dubbing them insular" (p.146) is masking deeper issues. For example, the rates of inward-looking youth, young people with no interest in studying or working abroad, are ─ 8 ─

8


in fact higher at elite national universities where the supposed leaders of Japan are educated. Small, local universities send a much higher proportion of their students abroad. Also, worries about the falling number of Japanese students studying abroad may be overstated. While it is true that the number of such students has fallen since its peak of approximately 83,000 in 2004, the number has been climbing slowly since 2010. And the current rate of approximately 70,000 students per year studying abroad is still higher than it was through most of the 1990s (MEXT, 2015b). Rather than looking strictly at the number of students studying abroad, however, it may be more interesting to look at those students’ destinations and programs. Western universities, especially in America and Britain, are still very popular but the number of Japanese students studying full-time at American universities is falling, while the number of students studying in Japan's regional neighbors, China in particular, is actually rising. In fact, as of 2012, China had overtaken America as the top destination for Japanese students studying abroad. In addition, short term language programs are growing in popularity with 60% of students studying abroad for less than 3 months compared with only 2% entering programs of a year or more in length. (MEXT, 2015b). Imoto argues that the current media focus on inward-looking youth is actually more rightly thought of as youth looking away from the west. The public debate was actually sparked by comments made in the media by the president of Harvard University and the American Ambassador to Japan about the drop in the number of Japanese students at elite American universities. In addition, concerns about inward-looking youth focus on mainstream Japanese youth while ignoring a growing, and increasingly outward-looking, multicultural and mixed-ethnicity community in Japan. Burgess (2014) also argues that the youth themselves may not be to blame for the falling numbers of Japanese students studying abroad, reduced participation in international volunteer organizations, and lower willingness to work overseas. In fact, despite government and industry statements to the contrary, the employment and education systems of Japan do not support an international outlook. University students returning from longterm overseas experiences often find it difficult to find a job due to the rigid job hunting schedule which requires students to begin the application and interview process a year or more before graduation. Even worse, a student with too much international experience runs the risk of being seen as unpredictable or unreadable, thus becoming an unsuitable candidate in many job-hunting situations. As Yonezawa (2014) says of the job-hunting system, “study abroad experience, including graduate degrees, is not necessarily wellrecognized or rewarded” (p. 46). Yonezawa (2014) also reports that universities themselves, while actively encouraging more students to study abroad on the one hand, have been slow to make necessary administrative changes that would allow large numbers of students to take advantage of international opportunities, and do not do a good job of preparing and supporting students who do go overseas. Murphey (2011) reports on the “real voices” of his students who argue that Japanese universities discourage study abroad with policies that require students to pay full tuition at both the home and host universities and make it very difficult for students to transfer credits earned abroad. In fact, at many universities, a semester spent studying abroad may mean that a student cannot graduate on time with their cohort. This also marks them as unsuitable in many job hunting situations, creating a double disincentive for spending time abroad. Recently, MEXT has asked all universities in Japan to make the necessary administrative changes to simplify study abroad for students

─ 9 ─

9


but it is still unclear to what extent that has helped the situation. Many young people, faced with these obstacles, simply choose to follow the path of least resistance - a wholly domestic study and work experience. So, a reluctance to study abroad among youth may in fact be a completely rational reaction to the disincentives with which they have been presented, rather than an actual socially or culturally based inwardlooking tendency. Another telling argument made by Burgess (2014) draws on survey data of students and parents. Interestingly, parents were twice as likely as university students to object to the idea of young people becoming globally oriented. Costs, presumably costs for education, and risk were the two main reasons cited for parents wanting their children to remain inward looking. The cost issue may be especially important amid ever rising tuition rates, especially for foreign students, at western universities. A final point that argues against the notion of inward looking youth is raised by Bradford (2015). She argues that falling numbers of undergraduate students studying abroad may in fact be a positive sign. It may indicate that recent increases in university internationalization at home strategies, including better language training, and more international students on campus, may be giving domestic Japanese students the international experience they are looking for without the need for costly, and possibly disruptive, study abroad programs. Thus, EMI programs and the internationalization of higher education in general may be framed in terms of helping the youth of Japan turn their view outward. But in fact, they may not be the remedy that the government and industry are looking for, as they do not address root causes. (2) EMI and Financial Issues One other possible rationale for implementing EMI that should be considered is a potential financial benefit. Universities may see EMI as a way to attract fee-paying international students in order to improve their bottom line. However, for the most part, this is not seen in the Japanese case. In fact, in Japan, internationalization programs in general are often seen as a burden both financially (Yonezawa , Akiba & Hirouchi, 2009) and in terms of human resources (Breaden, 2012). Some universities at the lower end of the higher education hierarchy may be internationalizing in the name of financial gain; however, this is a limited kind of internationalization that does not actually lead to an international university. As discussed above, the capacity of the higher education sector expanded considerably while at the same time, the size of the university-aged cohort was decreasing. Recent figures from The Promotion and Mutual Aid Corporation for Private Schools of Japan (2013) show that 46% of private universities are operating below capacity; that is, they are unable to recruit students to fill all available seats. A surprisingly high number, 18 universities, are operating at less than 50% of their intake capacity. This has led to a widely-held belief that a great deal of consolidation in the private university sector is required and university closures are unavoidable. For some universities operating under capacity, international students represent a way to fill seats: a route to institutional survival. Many of the Japanese universities accepting a high proportion of international undergraduate students, relative to the whole student body, are small-to-medium-sized private universities which are considered to be of low academic level (Goodman, 2007). Most have limited, or no, EMI offerings and ─ 10 ─

10


integrate international students, largely from China (JASSO, 2013), into Japanese language programs or in Japanese-medium content programs. This has allowed “Japanese universities to accept them without having to introduce any serious internationalization of the curriculum or teaching methods” (Aspinall, 2013, p. 162). For other universities, EMI is more likely seen as a long-term investment rather than a short term financial solution. It can be a way to attract higher quality students, both domestically and from abroad (Brown, 2014) but since these students will pay the same fees as domestic students, or be supported by scholarships, there is no direct financial gain. 5. Conclusion: Where do we go from here? The development of EMI in Japan is a key element in the overall internationalization of higher education. And EMI for both international and domestic students is becoming an important part of many universities’ curricula. EMI also represents an exciting opportunity for many universities to reinvent themselves to face the challenges of the 21st century. This shift towards EMI has been driven by the massification of higher education and internationalization strategies developed as a reaction to globalization. The shift was triggered in the early 2000’s by changes in the way internationalization is understood, administrative reforms both at the university and ministerial levels, and the rise of university ranking tables. Japan is now entering a new phase of EMI development. EMI programs, including full-degree English-taught programs, are now in place at most top-tier universities, based on strong support, and pressure, from the government. Expansion of EMI, both in terms of number and size of programs, does not seem to be slowing and the number of students, both international and domestic, served by EMI programs will only grow in the future. In addition, EMI is now growing beyond the confines of the top tier of the higher education sector. Second and even third tier universities are adopting EMI in greater numbers. While some of the new adopters see EMI as a valuable addition to their curricula and a new part of their university identity, there are indications that the trend towards implementing EMI in the name of internationalization may now be fueling itself. An earlier study on this topic (Brown, 2014) found that some university leaders are calling for EMI programs without fully understanding or valuing EMI in and of itself. As more and more local, national, and international rivals establish and develop EMI programs, university leaders may see EMI as simply a necessary part of maintaining the university’s reputation and position. This trend can be especially problematic if stakeholders do not understand the challenges of properly implementing EMI, and sufficient resources are not allocated to professional development for faculty and language-proficiency development for students. Research into the implementation of EMI in Japan has rapidly expanded recently. Since 2010 the number of researchers working on EMI and the volume of work produced in Japan has grown dramatically (see for example recent books in English by Bradford & Brown, 2017; Toh, 2016; Yamamoto and Bysouth, 2015; and in Japanese by Shimauchi, 2016; Yokota & Kobayashi, 2013). However, there are still many unanswered questions. Wachter (2014) has argued that the development of EMI needs “far more rational discourse – a discourse that is underpinned by evidence” (para. 35). While Wachter was speaking mainly of the European context, the same holds for Japan. A serious discourse on the direction EMI is taking in Japan is necessary, especially now that EMI is expanding so rapidly and expanding into new parts of the higher education sector. A whole range of important questions remain open. What impact has EMI had on

─ 11 ─

11


employability of the first cohorts going through these new programs? What has the real impact been on content uptake and skills development? Which of the many different models of EMI implementation has led to more positive outcomes for students? How can the language proficiency of domestic students in EMI programs best be ensured? What are the best pedagogical strategies and curriculum planning models for EMI programs? How can we best support faculty in EMI programs? What are the long term social implications of EMI in Japan? EMI development is racing ahead of answers to these and many more questions. It may even be racing ahead of serious consideration of the questions themselves. And so, while EMI is an exciting and positive development for the higher education sector in Japan, perhaps it is time to slow down for some serious consideration of the challenges and opportunities that EMI represents. Author Biography Howard Brown is an associate professor with the University of Niigata Prefecture. He coordinates the Academic-Communicative English Program and sits on the steering committee for English-medium Studies. His current research interests relate to the effective implementation of English-medium instruction programs in higher education. Acknowledgements This work was partially supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C), Project Number 25370638. References Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education in East Asia, 11(3/4), 290-305. doi: 10.1177/1028315307303542 Aspinall, R. (2005). University Entrance in Japan. In J. S. Eades, R. Goodman & Y. Hada (Eds.), The 'Big Bang' in Japanese Higher Education (pp. 199218). Victoria, Australia: Trans Pacific Press. Aspinall, R. (2013). International education policy in Japan in an age of globalisation and risk. Leiden: Brill. Bradford, A. (2015). Japanese student perspectives towards study abroad. The Bulletin of Arts and Sciences Meiji University(510), 107-125. Bradford, A., & Brown, H. (Eds.). (2017). English-medium instruction at universities in Japan: Policy, challenges and outcomes. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Breaden, J. (2012). Internationalisation and paternalist micro-management in a Japanese university. Japanese Studies, 32(1), 21-37. British Council. (2014). Japan: Debunking the "inward-looking" myth. Brown, H. (2014). Contextual factors driving the growth of undergraduate English-medium instruction programmes at universities in Japan. The Asian Journal of Applied Lingusitics, 1(1), 50-63.

─ 12 ─

12


Brown, H., & Iyobe, B. (2014). The growth of English-medium instruction in Japan. In N. Sonda & A. Krause (Eds.), JALT2013 conference proceedings (pp. 9-19). Tokyo: JALT. Burgess, C. (2014). To globalise or not to globalise?‘Inward-looking youth’as scapegoats for Japan's failure to secure and cultivate ‘global human resources’. Globalisation, Societies and Education(ahead-of-print), 1-21. doi: 10.1080/14767724.2014.966805 Chapple, J. (2015). Teaching in English is not necessarily the teaching of English. International Education Studies, 8(3), 1-13. doi: 10.5539/ies.v8n3p1 Council for Asian Gateway Initiative. (2007). Asian Gateway Initiative. Tokyo: Prime Minister of Japan and his Cabinet Retrieved from http://japan.kantei.go.jp/gateway/kettei/070516doc.pdf. Dearden, J. (2015). English as a medium of instruction: A growing global phenomenon. London: The British Council. Ghazarian, P. (2011). Higher education global rankings system in East Asia. In J. Palmer, A. Roberts, y. Cho & G. Ching (Eds.), The Internationalization of East Asian Higher Education: Globilization's Impact (pp. 173-196). New York: Palgrave MacMillian Goodman, R. (2007). The concept of Kokusaika and Japanese educational reform. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 5(1), 71-87. Goodman, R. (2010). The rapid redrawing of boundaries in Japanese higher education. Japan Forum, 22(1-2), 65-87. doi: 10.1080/09555803.2010.488944 Hamid, M. O., Nguyen, H. T. M., & Baldauf, R. B. (2013). Medium of instruction in Asia: Context, processes and outcomes. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14(1), 1-15. doi: 10.1080/14664208.2013.792130 Huang, F. (2012). Higher education from massification to universal access: A perspective from Japan. Higher Education, 63(2), 257-270. Huang, F., & Daizen, T. (2014). Cultivating global human resources in Japan:

An analysis of national strategies and major findings from national survey. Paper presented at the The first annual conference on global

education at Lakeland College Japan, Tokyo, Japan. IHEP. (2009). Impact of college rankings on institutional decision making: Four country case studies. Washington, USA: Institute for Higher Education Policy. Imoto, Y. (2013). Japan: Internationalisation in education and the problem of introspective youth. In P.-t. J. Hsieh (Ed.), Education in East Asia (pp. 127-152). London, UK: Bloomsbury. Ishikawa, M. (2011). Redefining internationalization in higher education: Global 30 and the making of global universities in Japan. In D. B. Willis & J. Rappleye (Eds.), Reimagining Japanese Education: Borders, Transfers, Circulations and the Comparative (pp. 193-223). Oxford, U.K.: Symposium Books JASSO. (2013). Result of an annual survey of international students in Japan

─ 13 ─

13


2012. Retrieved from

http://www.jasso.go.jp/statistics/intl_student/data12_e.html. Kamibeppu, T. (2012). Internationalisation of higher education in Japan. In M. Magnan, M. Söderqvist, H. van Liempd & F. Wittman (Eds.),

Internationalisation of European Higher Education: An EAIE Handbook (A 3.2-3) (pp. 1-42).

Kinmonth, E. (2005). From selection to seduction: The impact of demographic change on private higher education in Japan. In J. S. Eades, R. Goodman & H. Yumiko (Eds.), The ‘Big Bang’in Japanese Higher Education: The 2004 Reforms and the Dynamics of Change (pp. 106–135). Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press. Kirkpatrick, A. (2014). English as a medium of instruction in East and Southeast Asian universities. In N. Murray & A. Scarino (Eds.), Dynamic Ecologies (pp. 15-29). Lieden: Springer. McVeigh, B. J. (2002). Japanese Higher Education as Myth. London: M.E. Sharpe. MEXT. (2005). Kyoiku katei bukai (Dai sanki Dai 1-12 kai) ni okeru omo na

iken [Key opinions given at the Education Program Meetings (The third term/1st-12th meetings)]. . Tokyo: MEXT Retrieved from

http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo3/004/siryo/0511160 3/001.htm. MEXT. (2009). Higher Education in Japan. Tokyo: MEXT Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/english/highered/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/02/28/13 02653_001.pdf. MEXT. (2011). Daigaku ni okeru kyouikunaiyou to no kaikakujokyou (Heisei 23

nen ban) [Regarding the current situation of educational contents at universities (as of 2011)]. Tokyo: MEXT Retrieved from

http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/daigaku/04052801/1341433.htm. MEXT. (2012). Selection for the FY2012 Project for Promotion of Global Human Resource Development. Tokyo: MEXT Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/english/highered/1326675.htm. MEXT. (2015a). Heisei 25 nendo no daigaku ni okeru kyouiku naiyoutou no

kaikaku joukyou ni tsuite [About the state of affairs regarding university reforms to education in 2013]. Tokyo: MEXT Retrieved from

http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/daigaku/04052801/__icsFiles/afiel dfile/2015/09/10/1361916_1.pdf. MEXT. (2015b). Overseas Study by Japanese Nationals. Tokyo: MEXT Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/english/topics/1357495.htm. Mori, R. (2009). Accreditation systems in Japan and the United States: A comparative perspective on governmental involvement. New Directions for Higher Education, 2009(145), 69-77. doi: 10.1002/he.336 Mulvey, B. (2010). University accreditation in Japan: Problems and possibilities for reforming EFL education. The Language Teacher, 34(1), 15-24. Murphey, T. (2011). The real voices of Japanese students. Retrieved from

─ 14 ─

14


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9CYaUhqEdw Nakatsugawa, M. (2014, August). The recent shift toward "Gurobaru" on

language policy in Japan: A critical analysis of the recent language policy developments. Paper presented at the The JACET 53rd (2014)

International Convention, Hiroshima, Japan. Ogawa, Y. (2002). Challenging the traditional organization of Japanese universities. Higher Education, 43(1), 85-108. doi: 10.1023/A:1012928416523 Ota, H. (2003). The International Student 100,000 Plan: Policy studies.

Hitotsubashi University International Student Center Bulletin, 6, 27-51. Otake, T. (2008, May 6). A Finnish way for the Japanese educational system?, The Japan Times. Retrieved from http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2008/05/06/general/a-finnishway-for-the-japanese-educational-system/#.VGUxaMnQv_l Rtischev, D., & Cole, R. E. (2003). Social and structural barriers to the IT revolution in high-tech industries. In J. M. Bachnik (Ed.), Roadblocks on the information highway: The IT revolution in Japanese education (pp. 127-153). New York: Lexington. SANNO Institute of Management. (2015). Dairokkai shinnyuu shain no guroubaru ishiki chousa [The 6th Survey on Global Mind of NewlyHired]. from http://www.sanno.ac.jp/research/global2015.html Shimauchi, S. (2016). Higashi Ajia ni okeru Ryugakusei Idou no Paradaimu Shifuto – Daigaku Kokusaika to Eigo Puroguramu no Nikkan Hikaku [Paradigm Shift on International Student Mobility in East Asia: Comparative Analysis on Internationalization of Higher Education and English-medium Degree Programs in Japan and South Korea]. Tokyo:

Toshindo. The Promotion and Mutual Aid Corporation for Private Schools of Japan. (2013). Shiristudaigaku tankidaigakuto nyuugakushigandoko [Trends in applicants for admission to private universities and colleges]. Toh, G. (2016). English as Medium of Instruction in Japanese Higher Education: Presumption, Mirage or Bluff? New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Tohoku University. (2008). Kakudaigaku ya daisansha kikan ni yoru daigaku no kokusaika ni kansuru hyoka ni kakawaru chosa kenkyu [Survey on the reviews of internationalization of universities by universities themselves and third-party organizations]. Sendai, Japan: Tohoku University. Umakoshi, T. (1997). Internationalization of Japanese higher education in the 1980‘s and early 1990‘s. Higher Education, 34(2), 259-273. doi:10.1023/A:1003049301267 Wächter, B., & Maiworm, F. (2008). English-taught programmes in European higher education: The picture in 2007. Bonn: Lemmens. Wachter, B. (2014). Questioning the student mobility imperative. University World News.

─ 15 ─

15


Yamada, R. (2012). The changing structure of Japanese higher education: Globalization, mobility and massification. In D. E. Neubauer & K. Kuroda (Eds.), Mobility and Migration in Asian Pacific Higher Education (pp. 83-102). London: Palgrave Macmillian. Yamamoto, B., & Bysouth, D. (Eds.). (2015). A Handbook for Enhancing

English-Medium Program Quality and Practice: Toward Effective Teaching, Learning and Assessment. Osaka Osaka University Press. Yokota, M., & Kobayashi, A. (Eds.). (2013). Daigaku no Kokusaika to Nihonjin Gakusei no Kokusaishikousei [The Internationalization of Universities and the Global Orientation of Japanese Students]. Tokyo: Gakubunsha.

Yonezawa, A. (2010). Much ado about ranking: Why can't Japanese universities internationalize? Japan Forum, 22(1-2), 121-137. Yonezawa, A. (2014). Japan’s challenge of fostering “global human resources”: Policy debates and practices. Japan Labor Review, 11(2), 37-52. Yonezawa, A., Akiba, H., & Hirouchi, D. (2009). Japanese university leaders' perceptions of internationalization: The role of government in review and support. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), 125142. doi: 10.1177/1028315308330847 Yonezawa, A., Nakatsui, I., & Kobayashi, T. (2002). University rankings in Japan. Higher Education in Europe, 27(4), 373-382. doi: 10.1080/0379772022000071850 Yonezawa, Y., & Yonezawa, A. (2016). Internationalization of higher education as a response to globalization: Japan’s policy challenges since the 1980s. In E. Healy, D. Arunachalam & T. Mizukami (Eds.), Creating Social

Cohesion in an Interdependent World: Experiences of Australia and Japan (pp. 191-204). New York: Springer.

1

University of Niigata Prefecture

─ 16 ─

16